Did Jesus teach he was GOD himself?

rod.ney

Well-known member
Jesus was made a little lower than the angels... He was not made a God-man ...a God-man would be higher than the angels... Thomas saying My Lord and my God do not make Jesus God...
He was already God the Word in John 1:1 before He became Flesh ( incarnate - God in the Flesh ) as the God-Man then called Jesus Christ in John 1:14! Yes His Flesh ( Mortal Body ) was made lower than Immortal Angels that He Created as per John 1:3/Col,1:16! His resurrection body is now Immortal Glorious Supernatural Flesh & Bones! Case closed!
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
100% WRONG again He Will Add! He ( the Word ) " who was God " and " was with God " ( the Father & Holy Spirit ) in John 1:1 BECAME " Flesh " ( God the Word in the Flesh as Jesus Christ the God-Man ) in John 1:14! All was created through/By Him ( God the Word, who became Jesus Christ ) as per John 1:3/ Col.1:16! Even God the Father calls Him " O God " in Heb.1:8, just after all His created angels Worshiped Him ( Jesus ) in Heb.1:6! Angels do not worship anyone but God! Precarnate Jesus ( the Word ) existed as God in order to have known Abraham BEFORE Abraham was born as per John 8:58! Case closed on the former HWA with his Twisted views ( 2 Peter 3:16 ) because all the AS IS ( before the Twist ) posted scriptures rebukes his views as per 2 Tim.3:16!
Sorry but John 1:1-3 that was written by John who was taught by Jesus, doesn't remove what Jesus himself clearly said in John 17:3 and neither does the fact that you are confused about John 1:1-3 make what you are saying about it correct either, for no matter how you might argue about it, your doctrine on John 1:1-3 contradicts Jesus' words in John 17:3 complete.

Therefore your doctrine about John 1:1-3 is false.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Sorry but John 1:1-3 that was written by John who was taught by Jesus, doesn't remove what Jesus himself clearly said in John 17:3 and neither does the fact that you are confused about John 1:1-3 make what you are saying about it correct either, for no matter how you might argue about it, your doctrine on John 1:1-3 contradicts Jesus' words in John 17:3 complete.

Therefore your doctrine about John 1:1-3 is false.
Evasion of Scripture.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
One Being, each Person fully God, just one God!
So the father is fully God ... The son is fully God and the HS is fully God and they are not each other. That means three individuals each fully God. That is three full Gods any way you slice it bro.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
He was already God the Word in John 1:1 before He became Flesh ( incarnate - God in the Flesh ) as the God-Man then called Jesus Christ in John 1:14! Yes His Flesh ( Mortal Body ) was made lower than Immortal Angels that He Created as per John 1:3/Col,1:16! His resurrection body is now Immortal Glorious Supernatural Flesh & Bones! Case closed!
There is no mention of a God the word or a Godman in the scripture. It is silly to assume that a God-man would be lower than the angels.
 

rod.ney

Well-known member
There is no mention of a God the word or a Godman in the scripture. It is silly to assume that a God-man would be lower than the angels.
O Yes indeed there is mention because John 1:1 POINT BLANK says " the WORD Was God " and was with God! Thus He who " was God " did in Fact become" Flesh " ( God the WORD in the Flesh or God-Man ) in John 1:14! Case closed!
 

rod.ney

Well-known member
Sorry but John 1:1-3 that was written by John who was taught by Jesus, doesn't remove what Jesus himself clearly said in John 17:3 and neither does the fact that you are confused about John 1:1-3 make what you are saying about it correct either, for no matter how you might argue about it, your doctrine on John 1:1-3 contradicts Jesus' words in John 17:3 complete.

Therefore your doctrine about John 1:1-3 is false.
Sorry, But Jesus claimed to be God the " I AM " of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58 and God the Father FULLY BACKED that up in Heb.1:8 by calling Him " O God " and the FACT that John 1:1 POINT BLANK says " the WORD was God " before becoming " FLESH " ( God the Word in the Flesh as Jesus Christ ) in John 1:14! Clase closed!
 

rod.ney

Well-known member
That's a strawman, any way you slice it.
Exactly, just like we are made in His Triune Image without actually being 3 Humans as 1 Thess.5:23 says we Humans have a human ( Body, Soul, & Spirit )! Thus each part of us can be called human ( human Body, human Soul, & Human Spirit ) without actually being 3 humans! Thus God the Father, God the Son, & God the Holy Spirit without actually being 3 GOD's! They are 3 Divine Persons in the ONE GOD ( TRINITY ) that can be called " God " individually just like our body, soul, & spirit can be called human individually, that makes up just ONE Human!
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Sorry, But Jesus claimed to be God the " I AM " of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58 and God the Father FULLY BACKED that up in Heb.1:8 by calling Him " O God " and the FACT that John 1:1 POINT BLANK says " the WORD was God " before becoming " FLESH " ( God the Word in the Flesh as Jesus Christ ) in John 1:14! Clase closed!
Nope and actually the very best you could do with John 8:58, would be that it was Jesus' answer to who came first, Jesus or Abraham and not that he was claiming to be God.

For the Jews twisted his words "your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day (the time of his coming to Israel) and saw it and was glad" and replied asking Jesus, "you are not yet fifty years old and yet you have seen Abraham" and therefore his answer was a matter of who came first and not about Jesus being God.

Furthermore, even Tertullian understood what the words "And God was the Logos" coupled with "and the Logos was "pros" The God" truly meant and he expresses it in his own words below.

Therefore he is guilty of twisting the knowledge that was given him, in making the Logos out as another person of God and just like he attempted to argue that our logos is within us who are made in his image also and which is totally ridiculous.

Here is his very words on this below and if you click on the link (Against Praxeas 5) it will open up the whole of what he wrote about this also.


<p>In Greek, "Word" is Logos, and it carries a much wider meaning than "word" does. It's the word from which we get "logic." The early churches were almost as prone to translating it "reason" as they were to translating it "word."

Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is:

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (Against Praxeas 5)
Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity.

God, according to the early churches, has always had logos inside of him.



Notice, Tertullian rightly sees the word Logos as God, to be referring to God as personified in his thinking and reasoning and logic and the words, "and the Logos was pros The God" to be meaning that God was reciprocating with his own thinking, reasoning and logic the same as we do who are made in his image.

Therefore he was without excuse that after seeing this he still twisted the meaning of John's words and made the Logos to be another person of God's nature and then to mean that we also have another person in our nature who are made in his image also and as if we are two persons in one being which is total foolishness.


Below are Paul's very words and which reveal what Tertullian did with his knowledge on this issue.


Romans 1: 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal (that which cannot die) God for images made like a mortal (that which can die) human being and birds and animals and reptiles.


The above is exactly what Tertullian became guilty of after having seen the truth about the Logos referring to God in his thinking, reasoning and logic and the words, "and the Logos was pros The God) as meaning that God was reciprocating with his own mind and thinking and reasoning and logic, he then still twisted the Logos to be referring to another person instead of the single person and being of God like John was expressing in all of this.


The only thing that John was making a distinction of within the single being and person of God in his prologue, was The God in his full being with The God as personified in his thinking and reasoning and logic and he being a monotheistic Jew, was never wanting you trins to be taking this to mean the he was speaking of two God's or of two literal persons who were the same God.
 
Last edited:

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Exactly, just like we are made in His Triune Image without actually being 3 Humans as 1 Thess.5:23 says we Humans have a human ( Body, Soul, & Spirit )! Thus each part of us can be called human ( human Body, human Soul, & Human Spirit ) without actually being 3 humans! Thus God the Father, God the Son, & God the Holy Spirit without actually being 3 GOD's! They are 3 Divine Persons in the ONE GOD ( TRINITY ) that can be called " God " individually just like our body, soul, & spirit can be called human individually, that makes up just ONE Human!

I think that analogy does NOT represent the Trinity any better than an egg (shell, white, and yoke).

And most TRINITARIANS I debate would say an egg is NOT a good analogy of the Trinity because it shows “separate parts”.

Let me ask YOU...

1) Is an egg (with shell, while, and yoke) a good analogy of the Trinity?

2) Is a human (with body, soul, and spirit) a good analogy of the Trinity?
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
I think that analogy does NOT represent the Trinity any better than an egg (shell, white, and yoke).

And most TRINITARIANS I debate would say an egg is NOT a good analogy of the Trinity because it shows “separate parts”.

Let me ask YOU...

1) Is an egg (with shell, while, and yoke) a good analogy of the Trinity?

2) Is a human (with body, soul, and spirit) a good analogy of the Trinity?
The biggest blunder with using our being made in the image of God in body, soul and spirit, as a good analogy of the trinity, is the fact that when God made man he was totally Spirit and didn't have a body at all.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Nope and actually the very best you could do with John 8:58, would be that it was Jesus' answer to who came first, Jesus or Abraham and not that he was claiming to be God.

For the Jews twisted his words "your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day (the time of his coming to Israel) and saw it and was glad" and replied asking Jesus, "you are not yet fifty years old and yet you have seen Abraham" and therefore his answer was a matter of who came first and not about Jesus being God.

Furthermore, even Tertullian understood what the words "And God was the Logos" coupled with "and the Logos was "pros" The God" truly meant and he expresses it in his own words below.

Therefore he is guilty of twisting the knowledge that was given him, in making the Logos out as another person of God and just like he attempted to argue that our logos is within us who are made in his image also and which is totally ridiculous.

Here is his very words on this below and if you click on the link (Against Praxeas 5) it will open up the whole of what he wrote about this also.


<p>In Greek, "Word" is Logos, and it carries a much wider meaning than "word" does. It's the word from which we get "logic." The early churches were almost as prone to translating it "reason" as they were to translating it "word."

Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is:

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (Against Praxeas 5)
Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity.

God, according to the early churches, has always had logos inside of him.



Notice, Tertullian rightly sees the word Logos as God, to be referring to God as personified in his thinking and reasoning and logic and the words, "and the Logos was pros The God" to be meaning that God was reciprocating with his own thinking, reasoning and logic the same as we do who are made in his image.

Therefore he was without excuse that after seeing this he still twisted the meaning of John's words and made the Logos to be another person of God's nature and then to mean that we also have another person in our nature who are made in his image also and as if we are two persons in one being which is total foolishness.


Below are Paul's very words and which reveal what Tertullian did with his knowledge on this issue.


Romans 1: 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal (that which cannot die) God for images made like a mortal (that which can die) human being and birds and animals and reptiles.


The above is exactly what Tertullian became guilty of after having seen the truth about the Logos referring to God in his thinking, reasoning and logic and the words, "and the Logos was pros The God) as meaning that God was reciprocating with his own mind and thinking and reasoning and logic, he then still twisted the Logos to be referring to another person instead of the single person and being of God like John was expressing in all of this.


The only thing that John was making a distinction of within the single being and person of God in his prologue, was The God in his full being with The God as personified in his thinking and reasoning and logic and he being a monotheistic Jew, was never wanting you trins to be taking this to mean the he was speaking of two God's or of two literal persons who were the same God.
Tortured, complex trash.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
O Yes indeed there is mention because John 1:1 POINT BLANK says " the WORD Was God " and was with God!
So who was with God? Was it another God with God? If so that would be teaching multiple Gods.
Thus He who " was God " did in Fact become" Flesh " ( God the WORD in the Flesh or God-Man ) in John 1:14!
If he who was God became flesh then who is the one that was with God and what did he become? Let us put this in perspective... In this scenario, God is the father, and the word is Jesus. Jesus said he was with the father in the beginning. Therefore Jesus must be the word. Are you saying that Jesus is also the Father? Or are you saying that Jesus is another God with God the father?
Case closed!
You cannot close a case without explaining if Jesus was God the Father or if Jesus is another God (God the Word) with the Father.
 

rod.ney

Well-known member
So who was with God? Was it another God with God? If so that would be teaching multiple Gods.

If he who was God became flesh then who is the one that was with God and what did he become? Let us put this in perspective... In this scenario, God is the father, and the word is Jesus. Jesus said he was with the father in the beginning. Therefore Jesus must be the word. Are you saying that Jesus is also the Father? Or are you saying that Jesus is another God with God the father?

You cannot close a case without explaining if Jesus was God the Father or if Jesus is another God (God the Word) with the Father.
Case is closed because GOD is a Trinity of 3 Divine persons called Father, Son. & Holy Spirit! Yes each part ( yes part is not a good word to use for the Trinity, but it is used so you can understand as a human ) of One GOD can be called God without actually being 3 GOD's, just like Triune humans can have each part of them called human without actually being 3 humans - ie - human body, human soul, & human spirit ( see 1 Thess.5:23 for that Fact that one human consist of those 3 parts since all humans were in Fact created in the One GOD's Triune image as per Gen.1:26! The one GOD said this " Let US ( plural - FSHS ) create man in OUR Image ( Plural - FSHS )"! He did not say let me ( singular ) create man in my ( singular ) image! So yes each Divine Person of the TRINITY ( One GOD ) can be called " God " individually ( as per John 1:1, Acts 5:3-4 for the Holy Spirit, and Heb.1:8 for the Son ), without actually being 3 GOD's!
 

rod.ney

Well-known member
Nope and actually the very best you could do with John 8:58, would be that it was Jesus' answer to who came first, Jesus or Abraham and not that he was claiming to be God.

For the Jews twisted his words "your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day (the time of his coming to Israel) and saw it and was glad" and replied asking Jesus, "you are not yet fifty years old and yet you have seen Abraham" and therefore his answer was a matter of who came first and not about Jesus being God.

Furthermore, even Tertullian understood what the words "And God was the Logos" coupled with "and the Logos was "pros" The God" truly meant and he expresses it in his own words below.

Therefore he is guilty of twisting the knowledge that was given him, in making the Logos out as another person of God and just like he attempted to argue that our logos is within us who are made in his image also and which is totally ridiculous.

Here is his very words on this below and if you click on the link (Against Praxeas 5) it will open up the whole of what he wrote about this also.


<p>In Greek, "Word" is Logos, and it carries a much wider meaning than "word" does. It's the word from which we get "logic." The early churches were almost as prone to translating it "reason" as they were to translating it "word."

Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is:

Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind …
Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (Against Praxeas 5)
Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity.

God, according to the early churches, has always had logos inside of him.



Notice, Tertullian rightly sees the word Logos as God, to be referring to God as personified in his thinking and reasoning and logic and the words, "and the Logos was pros The God" to be meaning that God was reciprocating with his own thinking, reasoning and logic the same as we do who are made in his image.

Therefore he was without excuse that after seeing this he still twisted the meaning of John's words and made the Logos to be another person of God's nature and then to mean that we also have another person in our nature who are made in his image also and as if we are two persons in one being which is total foolishness.


Below are Paul's very words and which reveal what Tertullian did with his knowledge on this issue.


Romans 1: 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal (that which cannot die) God for images made like a mortal (that which can die) human being and birds and animals and reptiles.


The above is exactly what Tertullian became guilty of after having seen the truth about the Logos referring to God in his thinking, reasoning and logic and the words, "and the Logos was pros The God) as meaning that God was reciprocating with his own mind and thinking and reasoning and logic, he then still twisted the Logos to be referring to another person instead of the single person and being of God like John was expressing in all of this.


The only thing that John was making a distinction of within the single being and person of God in his prologue, was The God in his full being with The God as personified in his thinking and reasoning and logic and he being a monotheistic Jew, was never wanting you trins to be taking this to mean the he was speaking of two God's or of two literal persons who were the same God.
FYI, only God can know someone before that some one is born! In John 8:58 Jesus CLAIMED to have personally known Abraham ( Not after Abraham was born ) before Abraham was born! You lose again! Case closed as ONLY GOD knows people before they are born! ----------------------
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
So who was with God? Was it another God with God? If so that would be teaching multiple Gods.

If he who was God became flesh then who is the one that was with God and what did he become? Let us put this in perspective... In this scenario, God is the father, and the word is Jesus. Jesus said he was with the father in the beginning. Therefore Jesus must be the word. Are you saying that Jesus is also the Father? Or are you saying that Jesus is another God with God the father?

You cannot close a case without explaining if Jesus was God the Father or if Jesus is another God (God the Word) with the Father.
NOT God The Father; another PERSON God The Word(Son)with The Father.
Your strawman is exposed again.
 
Top